U.S. powerless to act against anti-Islam inciters

I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day

Gimme a break.

Hasn't anyone seen "Zeitgeist?" That's just as negative towards Christianity. It's just that Christians don't scream bloody murder and start killing people when anybody says anything unfavorable toward their religion.

This is where the difference of religions can be clearly observed. No love and little tolerance. I do not know, and do not want to know, anything about this Muslim religion. Nor want to be close to any fanatic of it. All I know is that in the Christian religion, you turn the other check to be slapped on. Those who seek any opportunity to release acts of violence are probably just using religion for their means. And we see it in China with recent protests, in the US after the 911 attack, in sports events in Europe, lynching mobs in Brazil, Mexixo, Guatemala, etc, (just examples of recent news I read). If you find yourself in such a need to be part of these violent mobs, some evil thoughts must have set foot in your heart to become part of it. True loving people steer away from such events. After all, is not love and abstention from the "World" what a true religion should promote? I am definitely convinced that many so called religions are decoys of the true one. If we think of God as the one promoting love, and the Devil as the one promoting hate, would not it be reasonable to think that the Devil is behind the creation and maintenance of these decoys of the true religion? And this is not about hate but about knowledge of what is happening out there. Some of you will understand it, some will not because many will be deprived from knowledge. I will also not justify the hateful citing our freedom of speech, because mocking a religion, no matter how evil it may seem, is not the way for true Believer, (of any given religion), to go about in trying to persuade somebody to becoming a believer of his own faith. Showing true love, patience, and consideration, will enlighten some in making an informed decision about his own religion. Detach yourself from the World first, then you will see things a lot clearer.

What is the penalty in Japan for ridiculing shinto? That people are killed in riots over cartoons is on the countries and religion that encourages such crime, not the cartoonist.

Islam's teachings are at odds with all the basic American and Western values: tolerance, individuality, freedom, human rights and equality.

It's time for the West to realize this, and to treat Islam like any other dangerous ideology, as it would fascism or white supremacy, Appeasement would irresponsible and highly dangerous.

What a misguided article. Instead of "acting against anti-islam inciters", the US should act to stand firm on freedom of speech and against the encroachment of Shariah.

Does the writer really want to submit under islamic supremacy, under threat of violence from embassy-burning mobs?

Good grief.

edbardoe:

" What is the penalty in Japan for ridiculing shinto? "

I don´t know if there is a law, but I am certain that Japanese mobs would not burn down embassies and murder ambassadors if somebody posted a Shinto.-critical film on Youtube. And I have never heard that Shinto clerics demand that the whole word submits under Shinto religous rules. You disagree?

avigator:

" . If we think of God as the one promoting love, "

That is a Christian concept only. The islamic god demands submission. That is a completely different philosophical position.

Back on topic please.

Trying to stop Muslims from rioting is futile, it is not power that is called for, but common sense. The US should serve notice that it will take attacks on its embassies as a sign that its presence in no longer desired in those particular countries and shut them down, permanently. Replace diplomatic exchanges with Twitter tweets. Assign visa application processing to a chimpanzee in the Washington Zoo, and declare a minimum 5-year waiting period for all visa applicants who are nationals of countries with no embassies. No -- make it 10 years.

"Powerless" eh? so what, are they just going to let these folk run riot until they run out of energy?

The maker of the film is a stupid, careless man who has placed his family, America and American Interests in jeopardy. He is liable for inciting to riot, ( a criminal offense. ) His freedom of speech ends when he impinges upon the safety and the freedoms of others. He is as culpable as one who yells, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

We CANNOT control the behavior of people in other countries - and we SHOULD not, (unless they present a threat to our Sovereign Welfare and National Security.) We HOLD the moral high ground. We TOLERATE Islam, (although many, if not most of us here in the USA do not care for it.) It is this TOLERANCE that is the SUPERIOR religious value of the United States (in the finest sense of the meaning of religion). We do not have to believe that Muhammad was anything other than an ordinary man of his time, Just as Muslims believe that Issa, (Jesus), was no more than a prophet. ANY religion, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., that tries to force its teachings upon others by means of violence is inherently FALSE and UNRELIGIOUS! The tendency of Muslims towards violence is a red flag, a warning of danger, that will serve to turn honest, peaceful and good "unbelievers", such as Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others away from the professed Islamic, "religion of peace".

That being said, the maker of the film is presently in the USA and will be dealt with according to our laws and sensibilities. IMHO, I believe he is prison-bound - and for a long, long time. (At least, I certainly hope so.)

Yesterday, The Onion ran a cartoon that depicted Moses (Judaism), Jesus (Christianity), Buddha and the Hindu elephant-faced deity (sorry, don't know the name or significance). All were engaged in obscene acts. The cartoon was blasphemous and offensive. Underneath, it was captioned, "No one was murdered because of this cartoon."

UMIOSO - why would the film-maker be prison bound? The whole point is, no one goes to prison because they of upset sensibilities - please read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Right now they are looking to see if he has violated his any of terms of is current probation, that COULD possibly get him in some trouble. If not for this probation (for previous financial fraud charges) there would be almost zero chance hed have any legal issues in the US. Interestingly, he is Egyptian and if he was in Egypt....well, lets not go there.

Why are people quick to blame the filmmakers? Their freedom of expression is protected, however reprehensible it may be.

The murderous and violent reactions to the film is where the blame belongs.

To do anything against the filmmakers would be the same as saying "the violent reaction was justifiable." What madness is this logic? It is absolutely disgusting. Does anybody know what I mean?

The murderous and violent reactions to the film is where the blame belongs.

Obviously, but we don't even live in the same country with the same laws and culture. If that was possible then there is no need for military.

Remember, the hate speech by Muslim radicals in America are protected too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89e_bIg3e-M

See an investigation into why authorities are concerned about the violent messages being preached outside a New York mosque on tonight's "AC 360," 10 ET on CNN.

New York (CNN) -- Outside a Manhattan mosque where the imam preaches against terrorism, the brothers of the "Revolution Muslim" are spreading a different message. Protected by the Constitution of the country they detest, radical Muslim converts like Yousef al-Khattab and Younes Abdullah Mohammed preach that the killing of U.S. troops overseas is justified. In their thinking, so were the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States -- and so are attacks on almost any American. "Americans will always be a target -- and a legitimate target -- until America changes its nature in the international arena," Mohammed said in an interview to air on tonight's "AC 360." Al-Khattab and Mohammed consider al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden their model.

*Authorities say the language walks "right up to the line" of free speech protection

lostrune2:

" Remember, the hate speech by Muslim radicals in America are protected too: "

Exactly. And I don´t see the Obama government making efforts to censor that speech.

Of course, the recepients of muslim hate speech are not raising mobs to burn down embassies...

Umioso:

" That being said, the maker of the film is presently in the USA and will be dealt with according to our laws and sensibilities. IMHO, I believe he is prison-bound - and for a long, long time. (At least, I certainly hope so.) "

And on what charge exactly? What is free speech worth if you go to prison for using it?

Umioso:

While we are at it, do you think that Bill Maher (a big Obama supporter) should also go to prison? Because Bill Maher made a film "Religulous" that mainly spoofs Catholicis, but also has a segment that ridicules islam. You can be sure that any imam who wants to can easily whip up a muslim mob to go on a rampage by saying that Bill Maher has insulted to prophet.

So would you advocate imprisoning Bill Maher now and banning "Religilous" now, as a preventive measure, or would you prefer to wait until an imam finds it and makes it an issue?

Or would you advocate treating Bill Maher and the Egyptian immigrant in who made this movie differently?

What do you say?

A soft push for reducing free speech. The idea is to slowly erode free speech rights in line with UN policy under the "genocide" rubric wherein even proselytizing is forbidden. The technique is to slowly and consistently putting forth the idea until it gains acceptance, much like training animals with a slow consistent touch. Under Agenda 21, population should be stabilized at 1,000,000,000 worldwide, so incitement of a religious WW3 is not out of the question, either. So the gambit is to reduce freedom or population. For the UN, EITHER outcome is a win. Only preserving freedom coupled with nonviolence is a win.

Have Islam and any other religion ever co-existed peacefully ? The competing sects in the major religions are well-knownffor infighting to the point of bloodshed as well. Human history is littered with instances of religion-fueled killings and genocide.

“I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday.

It's hard to understand why the US secret services can react so quickly to go tracking foreigners at the other side of the world about wikileaks, copyright piracy... and so slowly here. The video is about one year old.

What is free speech worth if you go to prison for using it?

Nothing, and that point was reach already. So that couldn't devalue it more if US services had done something in this case.

The whole point is, no one goes to prison because they of upset sensibilities

They go to camp like Guantanamo instead ?

And on what charge exactly?

On the charge of being suspect...

please read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The world Constitution ?

Have Islam and any other religion ever co-existed peacefully ?

During about 1000 years, they were super buddies with the Jews and the Oriental Christians. Back then that were the Catholics that were doing the terror.

yea, free speech is a bch, something could learn a little from in europe but they're too busy shttng their panties whenever someone makes a threat. If you give in once, there is no end to it. The movie was most likely total sht and cr*p, all but taste and made by stupid for stupid, ... but really, bombing someone for it or threatening to behead people who got nothing to with it? Imo that's even more stupid. I don't think a lot of people care a lot for either of the fanatic sides in this case. And the fanatics on both sides are seriously damaging their own case by acting ... well, how should i say this ... stupid ? bakabakabaka ... c'mon ... it's 2012

WilliB: What do I say? I say that it seems the Catholics took the ribbing like regular people. I cannot say the same about thin-skinned Islamists. They are "over the top" on doggone near everything. TOLERANCE is a two-way street! WE, (the US), will treat others AS they treat us. As I said before, it is up to our justice departments and courts as to the disposition of the guy who made the anti-Muslim film. The same goes for Bill Maher. OK? Satisfied?

WilliB: On what charge, exactly? On whatever charge(s) they file against him, of course. From what I understand, he may have violated his probation. He used fictitious names, (which the court had ordered him NOT to do.) He may have used a computer. (Also against his probationary restrictions.) Possibly OTHER charges. These possible charges have nothing to do with free speech.